Test Equipment Anonymous (TEA) group therapy thread

[mnementh]

....and now for something completely different...

Can anyone recommend a good source for NON-sleeved banana test leads that I can use with the 427A and my 3455A? Both are 1 kV max dc.

   DIY?

Plenty of options for buying 4mm gold bullets from the R/C market plus the usual electronic suspects. One of my 10AWG sets for high current use (40-60A if needed) next to an evilbay one (10A max before they melt).

Fat tip soldering iron and a little Lead/Silver solder for preference.

Those look very familiar... I’m so proud! 

(SNIP)
Nonetheless, all techniques and technologies can be and are misused. Good taste is important, and rare. Some people should never be let near a keyboard.

Hey... I resemble that remark!!! 

mnem
*currently herding kittens in a dentist’s office*

[mnementh]

(SNIP)
That's why validation and verification are two separate disciplines. Figuring out what to do ought to be more difficult than doing it.

There are many pitfalls to creating and maintaining something that is correct. Pitfalls should not be introduced unnecessarily.

Regrettably some tools introduce problems that other tools avoid. Such tools should be deprecated.

The problem here is that which has befuddled tool-users since the dawn of tool-use: We make our tools so they help the person who created them; this requires customizing the user interface for that person, INCLUDING how they think about the problem the tool is meant to solve. Language is just one such tool, and there's a reason we have so many languages.

All languages have their own syntax & grammar; it is the sheer literal stupidity of machines that makes syntax & grammar so paramount in the languages one uses to instruct them. That is why we call it "a command interpreter"; the machine thinks differently than we do so our commands literally must be interpreted FOR IT. While we think in parallel and are able to intuit, the machine thinks serially; it cannot infer. That is the core fault, BTW, with all of the security issues surrounding "predictive execution". It is ALSO why "human multitasking" is an absolute fucking lie.

For some people, syntax & grammar are literally second nature, so resolving such issues are entirely subtext to the problem at hand. They THINK in a certain syntax, so using that syntax is just a framework for solving the problem. For others the problems themselves are what is core, and the language used is just another abstraction for them to resolve. Other people fall between those two polar extremes; or in many cases, outside of their scope entirely.

Knowing this, create ONE PROGRAMMING LANGUAGE that works equally well for all who might use it.  What methodology is "obvious & unassailably correct" for one person is "ridiculously restrictive & convoluted" to another.



mnem
Food for thought. Thought from food.

[bd139]

Some good points there for sure 

The most important thing is not necessarily getting from A-B but making sure we get to B without getting sued or killing anyone.

On TEA matters....

As much as I want it, I don't need it. HP 6291A 0-40V 0-5A. Reasonable price, reasonable condition: https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/323837750460

Also someone got a good deal: https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/143298546075

[tggzzz]

For some people, syntax & grammar are literally second nature, so resolving such issues are entirely subtext to the problem at hand. They THINK in a certain syntax, so using that syntax is just a framework for solving the problem. For others the problems themselves are what is core, and the language used is just another abstraction for them to resolve. Other people fall between those two polar extremes; or in many cases, outside of their scope entirely.

Syntax is rarely an insumountable problem; it is a mere convenience/inconvenience. Hence

• I dislike "syntatic sugar" features in a language
• C# and Java are the same, Delphi and Pascal and C are the same - except for minor variations

and there the spaces/tabs vs braces is a mere (unnecessary) inconvenience.

Semantics, OTOH, is much more difficult for some people to get into their head. Hence

• you can write Fortran in any language
• don't use C when implementing backward-chaining rulesets, don't use Prolog when implementing FSMs, don't use FSM languages when implementing RDBMS relationships, etc

and yes, I have seen some mind-bogglingly bad choices of implementation language.

[tggzzz]

(SNIP)
Nonetheless, all techniques and technologies can be and are misused. Good taste is important, and rare. Some people should never be let near a keyboard.

Hey... I resemble that remark!!! 

I wasn't thinking of you in that respect. But in true post-modern-lit-crit style, now you've made me think...

Worth speed-reading, from http://www.fudco.com/chip/deconstr.html :

How To Deconstruct Almost Anything
My Postmodern Adventure

by Chip Morningstar
June 1993

"Academics get paid for being clever, not for being right."
-- Donald Norman

This is the story of one computer professional's explorations in the world of postmodern literary criticism. I'm a working software engineer, not a student nor an academic nor a person with any real background in the humanities. Consequently, I've approached the whole subject with a somewhat different frame of mind than perhaps people in the field are accustomed to. Being a vulgar engineer I'm allowed to break a lot of the rules that people in the humanities usually have to play by, since nobody expects an engineer to be literate. Ha. Anyway, here is my tale.....

[med6753]

I'm sitting here watching this discussion whiz by WAY over my head.  You guys have a habit of making me feel dumb sometimes. 

[bd139]

You are on the lucky side of the fence. The entire field is a throbbing soul consuming mental disorder on wheels. You’re not dumb; we are. You’re the clever one not prostituting your mind out!

[Specmaster]

Some good points there for sure 

The most important thing is not necessarily getting from A-B but making sure we get to B without getting sued or killing anyone.

On TEA matters....

As much as I want it, I don't need it. HP 6291A 0-40V 0-5A. Reasonable price, reasonable condition: https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/323837750460

Also someone got a good deal: https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/143298546075

That 475 sure looked to me like it had no sweep as the trace dots remain in the same position on every photo or is there some mode on a 475 where that is possible?

[GregDunn]

Semantics, OTOH, is much more difficult for some people to get into their head. Hence

• you can write Fortran in any language
• don't use C when implementing backward-chaining rulesets, don't use Prolog when implementing FSMs, don't use FSM languages when implementing RDBMS relationships, etc

and yes, I have seen some mind-bogglingly bad choices of implementation language.

And here's the nub: most people are trained in how to write in one language; very few have the experience and breadth of knowledge to be able to choose a language according to best fit for purpose.  I firmly believe that AT&T encouraged everyone to write in Java because no one either in tech management or project leadership knew about anything else - not because they thought it was the best language for the job(s).  That, and they only needed to support one language no matter whether it was for a DBMS or a systems utility.   

[tautech]

I'm sitting here watching this discussion whiz by WAY over my head.  You guys have a habit of making me feel dumb sometimes. 

+1
You're not alone med. 

[tggzzz]

I'm sitting here watching this discussion whiz by WAY over my head.  You guys have a habit of making me feel dumb sometimes. 

Dont beat yourself up; some things are best unknown

I long ago realised I'm third rate...

I knew and highly respected another engineer; when he disagreed with me I listened carefully since I knew I was going to learn something.

That engineer was in awe of other engineers, e.g. one who was expert in all aspects of radars, from antenna physics, propagation, processing, displays, and human factors. Therefore I'm third rate.

The way I save my self respect is that that engineer had two forebears that had won Nobel prizes for physics.

[bd139]

Some good points there for sure 

The most important thing is not necessarily getting from A-B but making sure we get to B without getting sued or killing anyone.

On TEA matters....

As much as I want it, I don't need it. HP 6291A 0-40V 0-5A. Reasonable price, reasonable condition: https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/323837750460

Also someone got a good deal: https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/143298546075

That 475 sure looked to me like it had no sweep as the trace dots remain in the same position on every photo or is there some mode on a 475 where that is possible?

Auto button was out. If that was in it would have swept

[Specmaster]

I'm sitting here watching this discussion whiz by WAY over my head.  You guys have a habit of making me feel dumb sometimes. 

Your not alone on this, when they start about programming and languages I almost switch off and go into spectator mode. The only programming I've ever done in my life was a little bit of machine code via an assembler on a Spectrum computer many years and since have forgotten about it. I did however manage to program the programmable controllers to take control of the City of Westminster Crematorium cremators but that was using a language called Grafcet and they worked really well for a number of years before they were replaced by a fully automated system. I'll resist the temptation here to make poor taste joke.

[bd139]

Semantics, OTOH, is much more difficult for some people to get into their head. Hence

• you can write Fortran in any language
• don't use C when implementing backward-chaining rulesets, don't use Prolog when implementing FSMs, don't use FSM languages when implementing RDBMS relationships, etc

and yes, I have seen some mind-bogglingly bad choices of implementation language.

And here's the nub: most people are trained in how to write in one language; very few have the experience and breadth of knowledge to be able to choose a language according to best fit for purpose.  I firmly believe that AT&T encouraged everyone to write in Java because no one either in tech management or project leadership knew about anything else - not because they thought it was the best language for the job(s).  That, and they only needed to support one language no matter whether it was for a DBMS or a systems utility.   

That was because it was likely a pretty good hammer at the time for most of the problem domains they had and it allowed people to improve by building an ecosystem in the company. There a big difference between a bad java programmer and a good one. The same cannot be said for C or C++ where even the most competent programmers occasionally shoot their toes off.

One project failure mode is failing to pick the right tool for the job. The right tool isn’t necessarily the one that does the job best but the one that allows you to solve the problem safely and in the budget and time allowed. That tool is usually the one that you already know because no one has time to learn erlang or Haskell to solve a problem when a C# program will do the job and has less unknown unknowns.

Ergo monocultural development companies tend to do better. I’ve worked with the opposite including one of the larger consultancies here and they could not deliver solutions to problems which is what we’re paid to do after all.

Java was the right solution at the time. It may not be now. That’s another problem!

[Specmaster]

Some good points there for sure 

The most important thing is not necessarily getting from A-B but making sure we get to B without getting sued or killing anyone.

On TEA matters....

As much as I want it, I don't need it. HP 6291A 0-40V 0-5A. Reasonable price, reasonable condition: https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/323837750460

Also someone got a good deal: https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/143298546075

That 475 sure looked to me like it had no sweep as the trace dots remain in the same position on every photo or is there some mode on a 475 where that is possible?

Auto button was out. If that was in it would have swept

That shows your in depth knowledge of Tek scopes right there.

[tggzzz]

One project failure mode is failing to pick the right tool for the job. The right tool isn’t necessarily the one that does the job best but the one that allows you to solve the problem safely and in the budget and time allowed. That tool is usually the one that you already know because no one has time to learn erlang or Haskell to solve a problem when a C# program will do the job and has less unknown unknowns.

Ergo monocultural development companies tend to do better. I’ve worked with the opposite including one of the larger consultancies here and they could not deliver solutions to problems which is what we’re paid to do after all.

There's a lot of truth in that, but the second paragraph hides as many problems as it reveals.

Monocultural companies do well when they are repeatedly solving the same or similar problems. Their employees tend to have 10 years of experience that is really 1 year repeated 10 times. I've never wanted to work for such boring companies.

Where a company encounters problems it has not solved previously, especially multidisciplinary problems, a monocultural approach is disastrous. They require engineers to have a variety of tools in their toolbox, and to pull out the right one for the job at hand.

Such companies are fun to work for; I spent most of my career in some.

[Neomys Sapiens]

....and now for something completely different...




Can anyone recommend a good source for NON-sleeved banana test leads that I can use with the 427A and my 3455A? Both are 1 kV max dc.

As usual for such parts, I recommend Stäubli (MC).

[med6753]

....and now for something completely different...




Can anyone recommend a good source for NON-sleeved banana test leads that I can use with the 427A and my 3455A? Both are 1 kV max dc.

As usual for such parts, I recommend Stäubli (MC).

[mnementh]

For some people, syntax & grammar are literally second nature, so resolving such issues are entirely subtext to the problem at hand. They THINK in a certain syntax, so using that syntax is just a framework for solving the problem. For others the problems themselves are what is core, and the language used is just another abstraction for them to resolve. Other people fall between those two polar extremes; or in many cases, outside of their scope entirely.

Syntax is rarely an insumountable problem; it is a mere convenience/inconvenience. Hence

• I dislike "syntatic sugar" features in a language
• C# and Java are the same, Delphi and Pascal and C are the same - except for minor variations

and there the spaces/tabs vs braces is a mere (unnecessary) inconvenience.

Semantics, OTOH, is much more difficult for some people to get into their head. Hence

• you can write Fortran in any language
• don't use C when implementing backward-chaining rulesets, don't use Prolog when implementing FSMs, don't use FSM languages when implementing RDBMS relationships, etc

and yes, I have seen some mind-bogglingly bad choices of implementation language.

You guys arguing over "proper indentation" vs stacking parens are arguing as much about grammar as syntax.

Syntax sets the context of what you are trying to communicate. As with anything important, context is everything; syntax is the agreed-upon construct that makes words into language and therefore a usable tool.
Otherwise, you just have a collection of words that don't necessarily mean what you want them to; just ask any non-Mexican-Spanish-speaking American who's tried to get around Mexico using only a Spanish-English dictionary. 

Better yet, ask the people whom they've tried to speak with. 

Your arguments fall more into the latter "it's all abstraction" camp; sure, if you sufficiently grok the underlying machine instruction set you can use any language you choose (and the similarities between popular languages become very visible; in fact, annoyingly so), or write your own interpreter and program in THAT. It's not like THAT hasn't been done before a time or three. 

This is great until you want to actually get something done working with other people. THEN the agreed-upon construct becomes VERY important; you can either take the time to become conversant in one of the popular programming constructs, or be ready to teach everybody you work with how to program in YOURS.

Cheers,

mnem
Time to feed the children; I'm just not sure whom to feed them to...

[0culus]

When I first heard of Python and learned that it used indentation to determine the structure of the code, I was appalled that someone would create a language like that.  But over time I've started to change my mind.  For one, it forces people to actually indent code properly.

That's a non-problem with most languages: use an IDE to force indent the code in a standard way with a single keystroke.

That's impossible with Python.

Not impossible. I use pycharm community because it has features like that. And it has a good debugger.

[med6753]

I'm sitting here watching this discussion whiz by WAY over my head.  You guys have a habit of making me feel dumb sometimes. 

Dont beat yourself up; some things are best unknown

I long ago realised I'm third rate...

I knew and highly respected another engineer; when he disagreed with me I listened carefully since I knew I was going to learn something.

That engineer was in awe of other engineers, e.g. one who was expert in all aspects of radars, from antenna physics, propagation, processing, displays, and human factors. Therefore I'm third rate.

The way I save my self respect is that that engineer had two forebears that had won Nobel prizes for physics.

I don't beat myself. In fact, I thank the software engineers for keeping me employed. Every time they released new microcode on the IBM Z Series they royally fucked up something which threw schedules in the shitter and forced overtime to recover. So while mildly annoying I profited.     

[kj7e]

With copious amounts of volume...

[med6753]

With copious amounts of volume...

Absolutely! 

[tautech]

Momentary Lapse of Reason in the background as we speak ! 

[kj7e]

Momentary Lapse of Reason in the background as we speak ! 

I have those all the time.